ESEA to Boost Federal Role In Education

Following an exhaustive effort by Congress that spanned nearly three
years and ultimately generated broad bipartisan support, President Bush
was expected to sign the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act
into law this week.

The legislation sets in place requirements that will reach into
virtually every public school in the nation. It calls for statewide
reading and mathematics tests each year in grades 3-8, a "highly
qualified" teacher in every classroom, and demonstrable progress by
states and districts toward academic proficiency for all their students
within 12 years.

It also exerts new pressure to turn around low-performing schools,
with a series of consequences for schools that persistently fail to
improve.

Called the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001, the mega-measure is
accompanied by the largest dollar increase ever in federal education
aid. The Department of Education's overall budget will rise by $6.7
billion in fiscal 2002, to nearly $49 billion. The education
appropriation for the budget year that began Oct. 1 won approval from
Congress late last month, shortly after both chambers passed the final
version of the ESEA.

Congress in the ESEA legislation and the accompanying budget seeks
to better target resources to high-poverty school districts. And the
ESEA now provides new flexibility—especially for
districts—in how they spend a portion of their federal
dollars.

The final package reflects a political compromise by a range of
interests, but embraces many of the president's original proposals
unveiled just days after Mr. Bush took office a year ago this month.
The bill received nearly 90 percent support in Congress, with big
majorities from both parties.

Last reauthorized in 1994 under President Clinton, the ESEA is the
major federal law in precollegiate education. It was first enacted in
1965 at the urging of President Lyndon B. Johnson, and it includes the
flagship federal K-12 program, Title I.

"This, I think, is legislation that has been bipartisan in the best
sense of the word," Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking
Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said of
the "No Child Left Behind" measure. The bill passed his chamber by a
281-41 vote on Dec. 13. Less than a week later, the Senate approved it,
87-10.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige hailed what he called "an
educational consensus between President Bush and congressional leaders
in both parties." He argued that the legislation would change the
nature of the federal role from funding to investing.

"When federal spending is an investment, it gives the federal
government leverage to demand results," the secretary said. "And
demanding results is what the Department of Education will
do."

Local Concerns

But while most politicians in Washington have praised their
handiwork, the plan has received a far more mixed reception from
education leaders around the country.

"I have the same concern you're probably going to hear from a lot of
educators: this mad rush for testing," said Lewis W. Finch, the
superintendent of the 18,000-student Cedar Rapids school district in
Iowa. "It's such a narrow band of information that they're going to use
to make crucial judgments."

Mr. Finch also suggested that the new requirements might be
disproportionate to the level of federal aid. "If it's only about 7
percent," he said in reference to the estimated federal share of
district expenditures nationally, "don't you think they're reaching a
little bit?"

Julio Z. Almanza, who heads the 13,000-student Duluth public schools
in Minnesota, closely tracked Congress' progress on the education bill,
to the point of knowing offhand the vote tally in the House. He said he
was disappointed that lawmakers ultimately rejected a plan—backed
by most Democrats and a minority of Republicans—that would have
locked in mandatory spending increases for special education for years
to come.

That issue was one of the thorniest education matters that Congress
debated this past year.

"Probably the best thing that the federal government could do right
now is fund the additional $5 million in special education costs that
my district has to pay" each year as a result of federal mandates, the
Duluth superintendent said. Mr. Almanza also said he was worried that
the new testing would cost far more than Congress has set aside in aid
for that purpose.

"If you fully fund the mandates, I can deal with the other aspects
of it," he said.

While most education leaders interviewed expressed at least some
concerns about the new law, some were far more upbeat in their overall
assessment.

"I'm 100 percent supportive of what this stands for, even if I will
struggle with the implementation strategies or whether they put enough
money behind it," said Peter McWalters, Rhode Island's commissioner of
education.

Key Concessions

While the final legislation reflects many of President Bush's
priorities, it also contains some notable changes from the 28-page
blueprint he unveiled a year ago.

For example, his plan to give private school vouchers to students in
persistently failing public schools was stripped out early in the
process in the face of implacable Democratic opposition. His proposal
allowing some states to convert most ESEA funding into a block grant in
exchange for negotiating a performance agreement with the Education
Department was also effectively squelched by Democrats. And many
Republicans joined Democrats in scrapping Mr. Bush's proposed system of
financial rewards and penalties for states based on their progress in
improving student achievement.

Democrats made concessions as well. Though total funding is more
than the president had sought, Democrats had been pressing for an even
greater increase. The final bill includes a level of program
consolidation and flexibility for districts in spending federal aid
that some Democrats found distasteful.

They also effectively lost at least one highly prized program: about
$1 billion for school repair.

And while Mr. Bush lost on vouchers, Democrats reluctantly agreed to
another of the president's ideas for increasing families' educational
options: letting parents direct a portion of a failing school's Title I
aid to pay for private tutoring.

Many members of both parties had to swallow hard on the new testing
and accountability provisions imposed by the federal government. Few
states currently appear to meet the law's testing requirements.

Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House education
committee, spent considerable time working to persuade his conservative
colleagues—including some who, like Mr. Boehner himself, had
called in years past for eliminating the federal Education
Department—that the bill was worth supporting. In the end, only
33 House Republicans voted no.

As his chamber prepared for final passage, however, Mr. Boehner
cautioned that congressional action on the bill was just the first
step.

"We must have the courage not just to vote for these reforms today,
but to ensure that they are implemented," he said. "The writing of the
rules, the implementation of this bill in each of our 50 states is
going to be a Herculean battle, not unlike what we have seen over the
course of this year."

Many states, in fact, still have not fully complied with core
requirements of the 1994 version of the ESEA—especially those
related to standards and testing—even though the final deadlines
are now past. ("States
Sluggish on Execution of 1994 ESEA," Nov. 28, 2001.)

The new ESEA builds in many ways on the changes that Congress set in
place in that last reauthorization.

Passed with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress as well
as the White House, the 1994 law called for all states to establish
high-quality academic standards, assessments aligned with those
standards, and accountability systems to ensure progress toward meeting
the standards.

But the testing required was less frequent than the annual tests now
being mandated for 3rd through 8th graders. The 1994 law required
statewide testing in at least reading and mathematics once during the
elementary grades, once during the middle grades, and once in high
school.

A Long Haul

The road to this reauthorization did not begin last January with Mr.
Bush's arrival in town. In the spring of 1999, President Clinton
unveiled his own plan to revamp the ESEA. Lawmakers spent a good
portion of 1999 and 2000 wrestling with the legislation, but with wide
differences remaining between Mr. Clinton and the GOP-controlled House
and Senate as the 2000 election campaign heated up, the effort was
finally abandoned.

Mr. Bush made education a top priority during his campaign,
embracing an active federal role in schools. That was an unusual
position for a Republican presidential candidate. The 1996 party
platform, for example, advocated the abolition of the Department of
Education. Following through on his campaign proposals, President Bush
unveiled an education package two days after he took office.

Rep. Boehner in December applauded the president for taking "the
issue of education and our party in a new direction."

Former Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley, who led the
Education Department throughout the Clinton administration, said in a
recent interview that while he had some misgivings about President
Bush's original plan, he was pleased with the final result. If he were
still secretary, Mr. Riley said, he would recommend that the measure be
signed into law.

Mr. Riley argues that the final plan has a great deal in common with
what Mr. Clinton wanted. "We submitted a bill that was consistent with
this," the former secretary said.

Boost for Urban Schools

One aspect of the new ESEA, and the accompanying spending bill for
the 2002 fiscal year, that has generated particular enthusiasm in urban
districts concerns how federal aid is distributed under the Title I
program for disadvantaged students—by far the largest ESEA
program.

In essence, the change will deliver an extra financial kick for
school districts with high concentrations of poor children by altering
the funding formula somewhat to tilt further toward those districts.
("Off Target?," Sept.
5, 2001.)

"I think there are more positives than negatives in this bill," said
Thomas W. Payzant, the superintendent of the 63,000-student Boston
public schools and a former assistant education secretary under
President Clinton. He said the targeting provisions were one important
reason for that.

"The targeting ... is a real signal that there's not only
seriousness of policy direction," Mr. Payzant said. "[It reflects] the
recognition that the federal government's role is to deal with issues
of equity and provide resources for those children that have the
greatest need for support."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said just before the bill's
final Senate passage that major urban areas would see increases of at
least 30 percent in Title I aid. Under the fiscal 2002 budget, Boston
public schools will get an extra $11 million this year, Los Angeles an
extra $87 million, and New York City an additional $143 million,
according to preliminary estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service. High-poverty rural areas will also see significant
gains, Sen. Kennedy said.

One key measure excluded from the final deal would have meant even
more money for school districts across the country: a plan to shift
spending for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act from the
"discretionary" to the "mandatory" side of the federal budget. That
proposal would have skirted the annual appropriations process in
Congress and locked in years of spending increases for special
education. The measure was included in the Senate version of the ESEA,
but was removed in the face of staunch opposition from Republicans on
the House side of the 39-member conference committee on the ESEA.

It was that decision that ultimately prompted Sen. James M. Jeffords
of Vermont, the Senate's only Independent, to oppose the final ESEA
legislation.

"I feel very strongly that what we have done, without the funding,
is going to be counterproductive and very discouraging," said Mr.
Jeffords, who was the chairman of the Senate education committee until
he announced plans last spring to quit the Republican Party. His
decision to become an Independent, and support the Democrats in votes
to organize the Senate's governance, flipped the balance of power in
the Senate to the Democrats.

But other members who backed the special education provision argued
that, on balance, the bill was still worth supporting, even if funding
levels for special education and other ESEA provisions would not be as
high as they had hoped.

Mr. Kennedy pointed to provisions in the bill that would expand
opportunities for educators' professional development, provide money to
help schools reduce class sizes, and expand and strengthen after-school
programs. He also said the bill would provide new resources and support
for failing schools.

"I regret that we are not going to be able to reach all of the
children that could benefit from these kinds of programs," he said. "We
will see a significant increase in the resources." But he vowed that
Democrats would continue to push for more money.

"We're going to have that battle next year, and the year after that.
That's the way this process works," Mr. Kennedy said.

While special education funding will remain discretionary, at least
for now, the budget for state grants under the IDEA grew by about $1.2
billion, to $7.53 billion, under the final spending plan for fiscal
2002. ESEA programs also saw some sizable growth in funding, especially
Title I, which was increased by $1.6 billion, to $10.35
billion.

Private Tutoring

Some Republicans, meanwhile, are especially pleased about provisions
in the ESEA overhaul that will allow parents new options when a
poorly-performing school fails to make sufficient progress over time.
After two consecutive years of not making adequate progress, a school
would have to provide public school choice. After three years, parents
could direct a portion of the school's Title I aid to pay for private
tutoring.

Republicans said the tutoring would kick in as soon as next fall in
at least 3,000 schools already identified as failing.

"That is a big incentive," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire,
the ranking Republican on the Senate education committee. "First, it is
a big plus with a parent, whose child has maybe fallen behind in math
or fallen behind in English, to take their child and get tutorial
support. It is an equally big incentive for the school systems to get
their house in order."

Asked about the tutoring provision, several state and district
leaders suggested it could be complicated to deal with.

Milwaukee Superintendent Spencer Korté said that,
philosophically, he backs the idea that parents should have the right
to make such choices. The 104,000-student Milwaukee system itself has a
state-enacted school voucher program for children from low-income
families. But Mr. Korté said he wondered about how the
provisions on supplemental services would actually work.

"From a practical point of view, it's going to be fairly tricky to
administer that," he said. "I think there are a lot of questions ...
that have to get answered."

Flexibility was another concept especially dear to the hearts of
Republicans during the ESEA debate. In its final form, the legislation
provides some extra flexibility, particularly for school districts in
how they spend federal aid, though not as much as many GOP members had
hoped.

The new flexibility was welcome news to some school leaders.

"The flexibility will be useful for us," said Mr. Korté, the
Milwaukee superintendent. "The money comes in silos, and it would be
very helpful if the silos got widened, or you could mix and match to
get the best effect for our schools."

That's exactly what authors of the new legislation envision. But the
related goal of some lawmakers and President Bush to consolidate the
array of ESEA programs into a smaller set of programs didn't work out
exactly as planned.

Some leading Republicans have emphasized that the final legislation
reduced the overall number of individual ESEA programs from 55 to
45.

A closer look at the final appropriations bill, however, reveals
that some of the programs that apparently had been consolidated in the
ESEA legislation re-emerged in the budget as separate items. To name a
few such provisions, the budget sets aside: $50 million for physical
education programs, $25 million for grants to reduce alcohol abuse
among young people, $32.5 million for elementary school counseling, and
$142 million to encourage creation of smaller schools.

Understandably, members of Congress and officials of the Bush
administration have been making a big deal out of final passage of the
education bill. After all, it has been a long time in coming. And it's
one of few domestic-policy accomplishments that both Republicans and
Democrats can point to in Washington this year.

Leaders in both parties, as well as some commentators, have called
the bill "the most sweeping reform" of federal education policy since
the first enactment of the K-12 education law 36 years earlier.

But while suggesting the new ESEA may well be significant, some old
political hands caution about letting the rhetoric get carried
away.

Former Secretary Riley recalled that in 1994, when Congress passed
both the Goals 2000 legislation and the last reauthorization of the
ESEA, the action was deemed a momentous change.

"We called ours sweeping," Mr. Riley said. "Whoever passes the next
reauthorization will call it sweeping."

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.